Politics is defined by Oxford dictionary as ‘the activities associated with the governance of a
country or area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or
hoping to achieve power.

'A politician, as someone who directly engages with politicalactivities, therefore, is associated with the government, its decision making and having or hoping to achieve power for them or their party. Therefore, as we can see, the definition of Politics does not engage directly with the permissibility of politicians’ lies, as it identifies the hope ‘to achieve power’ but does not eliminate deception as a way for politicians to achieve power, thus meaning politicians can lie. This essay argues that politicians should not be punished by the sole act of lying, but for the consequences and motives behind their lies and if punished, to what extent.

Under the First Amendment, political speech is the category of speech that receives the
greatest protection. The US supreme court declares that this is to protect the freedom of
political expression and to allow open debate about public affairs; it’s for transparency and
democracy on political matters. This ‘breathing room’ is also important for the truth to be told
as if it did not exist, a politician may choose to conceal a true statement in fear that it could
later be proved wrong or be wrongly accused by biased juries as being false. This prevents a
truthful self-expression from politicians, opposing the principles of the First Amendments.
Thus under the First Amendment, punishing lies becomes more difficult as there’s now the
need to identify between punishable and unpunishable lies. Hence, the question ‘should
politicians ever be punished for lying’ asks not only the primary question of do politicians lie,
but when they do lie, what penalty is appropriate. It is the question of where to draw the line
between having the freedom of political expression and demanding liability from those who
govern us.

This essay will seek to answer which types of lies should be deemed punishable and which
types not by examining the argument of Arendt and Plato on politicians’ lies.This is so that
the freedom of political speech remains protected and opens the chances of debate on
political topics whilst lies that create concrete harm to our society are prevented.
Early political philosophers like Plato states: ‘we liken the false to the true as far as we may
and so make it useful” (R. 382a-e).

The ‘Noble lie’ put forward by Plato is ‘the necessary deception’ rulers must use to create their ‘ideal city’ where citizens obey order and live in harmony. The Myth of the Metals suggests everyone is born with metals in their souls which in turn determines their place in the social hierarchy. This is more or less a ‘tool’ used on the lower class by philosopher rulers to keep their power by ‘naturalising’ certain social fictions and falsehood and thus be seen as protecting their citizens from the complex truth. The myth provides justification for the social hierarchy in the ideal city and encourages citizens to work willingly with a sense of community.

Plato argues that the ‘Noble lie’ is morally and politically permissible as it’s not the ignorance of the soul to the truth but ‘falsehood in words’ which is a ‘useful medicine’
-to extend the legitimacy and power of the philosopher ruler. In Plato’s
view, because the Noble lie benefits society by creating stability and order, it should be
allowed, or advocated. In opposition, Arendt warns that factual truth is especially fragile in
politics, and when it is denied or erased, democracy and accountability are at risk. Arendt
argues that the truth is always ‘in danger of being perforated’ or ‘torn to shreds’ by single lies
or organised lies. We threaten losing our stability when the audience chooses to ignore the
difference between truth and lie in order to survive; dependable truth vanishes from the
public and with it ‘the chief stabilizing factor in the (...) affairs of men’. This means deception
in politics can lead to the collapse of democratic accountability and with it totalitarianism as
the citizens are manipulated to believe in the ‘non-existence’ of facts. The ‘problem solvers’
or those who govern us, are obsessed with theories but only theories adjusted to their
preferred reality, rather than based on factual truth. These ‘problem-solvers’ engaged in
self-delusion and lied out of ‘patriotism’ because they had ‘great self-confidence’ and
believed they must be right. Arendt argues this harms democracy and reality, as people no
longer hold the ‘true’ information they need to make informed choices. Therefore, political
lies arise from both the act of deliberate lying and self-deception. It is thus necessary to
protect the truth so political leaders stop the act of self-deceiving and do not ‘lose all contact’
with the real world; this is so they are not themselves vulnerable to manipulation and
threatening democracy. Arendt hence rephrased the Latin adage ‘Let justice be done’ to ‘Let
truth be done though the world may perish’ to emphasize that the truth must be protected at
all costs, or politics and human life itself are at risk.

Political lies can take on many different forms. A politician may lie to protect their reputation
and to avoid embarrassment, win them votes during a political campaign, (to) protect
intelligence vital to national security or at the top of the scale, to hide a serious crime. I shall
use the examples of Bill Clinton and Nixton to demonstrate when political lies created
concrete harm.

Bill Clinton’s deception during the Monica Lewinsky Scandal 1997-1999 is a classic example
of a politician decepting to guard his reputation. After denying several news organisations
reporting his alleged relationship with Miss Moniaca Lewinsky, Clinton was later found guilty
and lied under oath. Bill Clinton had purposely misled the public into believing a false
statement he made to protect his reputation. As a result of lying to a grand jury (perjury) and
for the obstruction of justice as the abuse of presidential power, Clinton faced direct
punishment for threatening the integrity of the US legal system, eroding public confidence
and their trust on the fairness of US law and democratic accountability. The exact offense
Arendt proposes is dangerous to our democracy, and so the punishment for him was
justified.

To give a second illustration of when a politician lied, we explore the Watergate Scandal that
ruined Nixon’s reputation. The Scandal began with the leak of the Pentagon papers which
exposed information on the origin and conduct of the Vietnam war and other secret US
military operations during the Cold war. The Pentagon papers inspired Arendt’s work of Lying
in Politics’ where she states the papers revealed ‘deception’ and ‘falsehood’. 

The US had been intensifying and expanding US involvement in the Vietnam war, contrary to what the public was told; purposely misleading the public. This was followed by the Watergate
break-in, where the CREEP (Committee to reelect the president) broke into and tried to bug
the Democratic National Committee to learn about the campaign strategies of political
opponents, so Nixon can win the election. Nixon denied his wrongdoings and role in the
coverup, declaring ‘I’m not a crook’. However, evidence found him guilty and knowing that he
faced impeachment, he resigned in 1974. The key message of this story is that Nixon was
punished for what the truth revealed about him as a person, in other words his motives. He was to be punished for lying to hide his dark political deeds that would help him achieve
power; not for the sole act of lying, but that combined with the events in which the lie
attempted to hide.

The two lies have more in common than one might think. The difference: Bill Clinton lied
about having a sexual relationship with a woman, Nixon lied about a political burglary. The
similarity: both lies revealed the ethical lapse of the two presidents, their willingness to
mislead the public and the threat they posed to justice and the US legal system. Therefore,
both presidents were punished not solely for telling a blatant lie but for the severity of events
surrounding the lie, that is either the motive causing them to lie, or the consequences of the
lie. This makes the punishment for Clinton and Nixon justified as the lies had, according to
Hannah Arendt, put ‘democracy and accountability’ at risk.

Furthermore, lying can result in virtue. There is no need to emphasize how important the
truth is in democracy and justice, freedom and the truth are intrinsically linked. Therefore,
any lie which severely threatens this from the outset, should be punished without mercy.
However the question comes, what if the safety of our nation and our democracy depends
on it? Should the lie therefore be allowed, or even encouraged? To illustrate, Dr Antoni
Faucy, US point-man during COVID-19, lied about the need to wear masks and claimed
them unnecessary. He justified his lie by the need to not exhaust supply and ensure medical
professionals had protective equipment. He also lied about the threshold needed for herd
immunity, raising the bar from 60-70% to 85%. He feared that if otherwise, it might ‘lull
people into complacency about getting inoculated’. These lies were beneficial to the people as it protected their health from risks and ensured infected patients receiving crucial
treatments. His assertions that the borders were secure and migrants were ‘whipped’ was a
joke but if untold, the public would be outraged leading to chaos and worsen the pandemic.

Therefore, he lied for ‘noble’ reasons and because his motives and consequences were
positive. The lie Dr Faucy told increased public health safety by protecting the vulnerable
and supporting those most in need. Moreover diplomats like Raoul Wallenberg and Chiune
Sugihara gave the Nazis false paperwork and lied to them about the status of Jews which
saved the lives of thousands of innocent jews from deportation to death camps. This lie was
told to protect innocent lives against acts of discrimination and attempts to diminish human
rights. Consequently, political lies with positive and good intentions designed to protect and
enlarge human safety and freedom should, thus, be allowed to exist. If they were punished,
would alike politicians act similarly in similar future scenarios? In my conclusion the number
would drop significantly leaving a group of potentially vulnerable people at risk of losing their
safety, rights and freedom. These ‘Noble lies’ stabilised society and protected its citizens as
Plato suggested, so should not be punished.

To conclude and to answer our original question: should politicians ever be punished for
lying? We find ourselves in conflict between the importance of transparency and honesty in
political affairs and the complex human nature and political reality. As history has revealed,
not all lies should be viewed equally: some lies protect the public from harm and protect their
fundamental rights whereas other lies threaten this safety and the fundamental rights. In the
case of Clinton and Nixon, punishment is justified as the motive of those lies seek to conceal
political misconducts that threaten the democratic constitution, serving to violate justice and
the integrity of the state. Contrastingly, the efforts of Dr Fauci and diplomatic efforts during
hardships demonstrates that certain deception, told to save lives and enlarge rights, are
praiseworthy Therefore, the aim is not to cleanse the world of political lies and to punish all verifiable lies, but to establish clear boundaries. Punish those lies that threaten justice, democracy and public safety whilst maintaining the ‘breathing room’ needed for open political debate and expression. If we can distinguish between malice deceptions and validated concealment then we can foster a society where truth is valued and our democracy protected. And according to Josh Billing : ‘a lie with a purpose is one of the worst kind, and the most profitable. Next time when we look to punish a lie, we shall be looking at the purpose behind
it and which type of profit it might bring to our society.'